1. In
England, the Department for Children Schools and Families should
work with headteachers and with Ofsted to ensure that the importance
of citizenship is better understood and the subject is taught
with quality and appropriate breadth. In the devolved administrations,
the equivalent authorities should consider a similar approach
in the relevant curriculum areas. (Paragraph 36)

2. The Government
should ensure greater and more consistent access to youth and
community citizenship engagement programmes. The Government should
also consider what more it can do to support organisations which
are, directly or indirectly, promoting active citizenship and
political literacy. (Paragraph 38)

3. Public sector organisations
should encourage the development of the next generation of leaders
by appointing members of under-represented groups to supernumerary
positions on boards and other bodies. This should be aimed at
enabling people to gain the skills and experience they need to
equip them to take up positions of influence. (Paragraph 44)

4. We warmly welcome
the increased priority the House is giving to its education and
outreach activities, and we are impressed by the work that is
being produced. It is vital that citizens know more about the
way Parliament and its Members work. But we believe that there
should also be a firm focus on providing the public with information
needed to promote wider representation, without reference to any
one party. The objectives of the Parliamentary Education Service,
therefore, should in future include helping to encourage a wider
range of people to become candidates for election to Parliament.
(Paragraph 49)

5. Support should
be developed for Members to help them to promote political agency
and active citizenship in their constituencies. (Paragraph 50)

6. We believe that
all publicly-funded organisations, especially local bodies, should
create opportunities for people who are interested to learn how
to become more active citizens. (Paragraph 51)

7. Political parties are the mechanism by
which people of any background can be actively involved in the
tasks of shaping policy and deciding how society should be governed.
While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for
the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support
of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members
of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive,
to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the
national interestincluding by challenge to the Government,
where that is necessary and appropriateand ensuring that
proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately
drafted. (Paragraph 55)

8. The extent to which
political parties are the subject of both contempt and general
public indifference should be a cause of concern to all who are
interested in how our country is run. We acknowledge that the
recent disclosures about Members' allowances and some Members'
expenses claims have been extremely damaging, but a general dwindling
of attachment to political partiesgoing wider than the
decline in formal membershiphas been apparent over more
than 40 years.(Paragraph 59)

9. It is important
to the future of our democracy that political parties are able
to continue to function. As Nan Sloane, Centre for Women and Democracy,
put it, "The democratic process we have may not be a perfect
way of governing ourselves but it is better than most of the other
ones that there are out there and it is very dangerous to have
that undermined." In this context it is clear that the effective
functioning of political parties is very much in the public interest.
(Paragraph 60)

10. It is in the interests
of any political party which wishes to achieve, and sustain, a
period in government that it should foster local activism and
seek to build up social capital and trust. Active, healthy and
accessible local political parties will also play a vital role
in identifying and nurturing a greater diversity of MPs for the
future. (Paragraph 64)

11. The Government
should consult on the introduction of a scheme enabling local
political parties to apply for funding linked to their receipts
from member subscriptions. The scheme should be administered by
a suitable independent body and the details of all funding allocations
made should be published. Local political parties should also
expect to make some account of the way in which they use the funding
to support the development of social capital. This consultation
should take place in the first session of the 2010 Parliament.
(Paragraph 74)

12. Each national
party needs to develop a systematic plan of action to support
the development of local parties. As part of this plan parties
should draw up a checklist of actions which will promote diversity
(such as meeting in accessible venues) and might also offer practical
support and incentives to local parties which adopt measures on
the checklist. (Paragraph 77)

13. We recommend that
all political parties appoint national and/or regional community
champions for women, and people from BME and LGBT communities,
and disabled people. The champions' remit should include supporting
individuals from those communities in finding and sustaining a
suitable role within the party. Consideration should also be
given to formalising strategies for talent spotting within parties
and within the wider community.(Paragraph 79)

14. A description
of the main functions of a Member of Parliament should be drawn
up, agreed between the parties and published. The description
should not remove the scope for MPs to approach the job of representing
their constituency in various ways; it should contain general
principles and main objectives and tasks, rather than highly detailed
prescriptions. Greater transparency about the terms and conditions
under which MPs work has been achieved since the mid-1990s but
the process has not been completed; nor has it been matched by
a clearer explanation of the role of Members. More is needed.
This information should be consolidated, published (on the internet
and in hard copy) and made widely available to the general public.
(Paragraph 87)

15. It is important
to ensure that there is no single route into politics which is
accessible only to a privileged few.The routes by which
future Members come into Parliament should be monitored and information
published by the political parties. (Paragraph 102)

16. There would be
value in the parties being more open about both the qualities,
and the experience, they consider to be desirable for a prospective
parliamentary candidate. If it becomes clear that certain types
of experiencesuch as a spell as a party employee or as
an MP's researcherare preferred, the parties should consider
how those experiences can be made more accessible. (Paragraph
103)

17. Greater diversity
in our elected representatives will be achieved only when the
culture of our political parties has been changed. This change
in our political parties should be driven by the changes we see
in wider society, which requires and demands greater diversity
in all representative organisations and bodies. Party leaders
can help to challenge stereotypes of an effective Member, or Minister,
by ensuring that MPs from all backgrounds and communities are
able to demonstrate their skills in positions of prominence, either
within Government or within the party. (Paragraph 104)

18. Behaviour at selection
panels which discriminates against candidates on grounds of their
sex, background or personal circumstances can never be justified.(Paragraph 112)

19. Political parties
should make diversity awareness training, advice and support available
to party members involved in candidate selections. (Paragraph
116)

20. In practice all-women
shortlist selections have been carried out by UK local parties
in exactly the same way as traditional or 'open' selections, in
every respect other than the formal requirement that all the candidates
are women. We were told that the role of the all-women shortlist
is solely to reduce the discretion available to local party selection
committees to demonstrate bias in favour of men.(Paragraph
138)

21. If the number
of women MPs in the House of Commons falls at the 2010 election
it will make more pressing the need for all the main parties to
be assertive in their equality policies.(Paragraph 143)

22. We welcome the
progress which each of the main parties has made over recent years
towards ensuring that its local selection procedures are more
professional and objective than they have been in the past. Yet
the fact that, in most cases, it remains more difficult for a
candidate who does not fit the "white, male, middle-class"
norm to be selected, particularly if the seat is considered by
their party to be winnable, means that the case for equality of
representation has not yet been won. It is essential that the
leadership of each of the political partieslarge and smallcontinues
to make this case in discussion with their members and activists,
and also takes the measures necessary to secure progress. (Paragraph
146)

23. We fully support
the proposed extension of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates)
Act 2002 to enable the use of all-women shortlists until 2030.
Equivalent enabling legislation should now be enacted to allow
political parties, if they so choose, to use all-BME shortlists.
Like the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 such
provision should be time-limited and should be subject to review
prior to 2030. (Paragraph 149)

24. Candidate selections
for the following general election will begin, for some parties,
within the first twelve to eighteen months of the 2010 Parliament.
These selections will be equally important for securing cultural
change within parties and within the House of Commons. In this
context we particularly welcome the indications from the opposition
party leaders that they are open-minded on the matter of equality
guarantees. If the political parties fail to make significant
progress on women's representation at the 2010 general election,
Parliament should give serious consideration to the introduction
of prescriptive quotas, ensuring that all political parties adopt
some form of equality guarantee in time for the following general
election. (Paragraph 156)

25. We welcome the
openness of all three main party leadersRt. Hon. Gordon
Brown MP, Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP and Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MPto
the principle of publishing monitoring data in relation to candidate
selections. This is an important indication of the commitment
of all three main parties to the promotion of fairer representation
in Parliament. We recommend that all political parties registered
under part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000 should be required to publish details of their candidate
selections online every six months, on 31 March and 31 October,
setting out, for each potential candidate at each stage of the
selection process, the following information:

(a) the administrative region in which the selection
took place;

(b) the method by which the candidate was selected;

(c) whether the party:

(i) currently holds the seat for which the candidate
was selected; or

(ii) came second or third in the seat at the last
general election within a margin of less than 5% of the votes
cast; or

(iii) came second or third in the seat at the last
general election within a margin of more than five per cent but
less than ten per cent of the votes cast;

(d) the sex of the candidate;

(e) the ethnicity of the candidate; and

(f) whether the candidate is willing to identify
as a disabled person.

The reports might also include the following information:

(a) where a candidate is willing to identify as a
disabled person, the nature of the impairment;

(b) where a candidate is willing to state his or
her sexual orientation, the sexual orientation of the candidate;

26. Following the
2010 general election all political parties represented at Westminster
should publish a statement setting out the current proportion
of their Parliamentary party which is: female; from a BME community;
and/or identifies as a disabled person. The statement should
also set out what proportion of the Parliamentary party the national
party would like to see appearing in each of these categories
in December 2015 and December 2020. This statement should be published
by December 2010. In December 2015 and December 2020 the parties
should publish further statements setting out what progress they
have made towards just representation within the parliamentary
party, compared to the 2010 baseline and the percentage of each
group within the UK population as a whole. These reports should
also include an evaluation of the mechanisms the parties have
used to secure progress. (Paragraph 165)

27. We recommend that
the Government should find time for a debate on the implementation
of the Speaker's Conference's recommendations and progress towards
just representation in the House of Commons in 2010, 2012, and
every two years thereafter to 2022. We also recommend that the
House of Commons should provide access from a dedicated page on
the Parliament website to all published statements and reports
by each party represented at Westminster on their Parliamentary
party representation and candidate selections, alongside links
to the reports from the Speaker's Conference. (Paragraph 166)

28. We believe scarce
cash-limited Access to Work fundsintended for use by individualsshould
not be used by councils to fund core legal requirementssuch
as action to make reasonable adjustments to buildings. Making
such adjustments is a key part of being a good employer and complying
with the law.(Paragraph 188)

29. We do not doubt
that party leaders are sincere when they say that they want better
access for disabled people. We recognise that they may be finding
it difficult to make sure their policies are carried out at a
local level where it matters. Nevertheless the shortage of funds
must not be an excuse for local parties failing to make proper
arrangements for disabled people to play their part in politics.(Paragraph 199)

30. We believe that
all political parties should make it easier for disabled people
to play a full part in party activities, initially by setting
out a clear policy on access. At national level, this would mean
for instance making sure that campaign documents are produced
in Braille and other formats, that websites are easy to use for
people with sight impairments, and that BSL interpretation or
speech-to-text technology is available at major events. (Paragraph
201)

31. But there also
needs to be a realistic policy for local parties, encouraging
co-operation and making the best of the limited money available.
The ideas and practical suggestions set out in the guide and handbook
produced by the Labour Party Disabled Members' Group would form
a good basis for this policy, for all political parties. (Paragraph
202)

32. All political
parties should place a ceiling upon the expenses which candidates
can incur during any single selection process.(Paragraph
212)

33. We support the
suggestion of a Democracy Diversity Fund which could be drawn
upon by local political parties to support the work of developing
talented individuals from under-represented groups and also to
provide bursaries to individuals who would otherwise be unable
to sustain the costs of candidacy. There must be strong controls
in place to make sure the money is not abused and therefore the
scheme's effectiveness and propriety should be regularly evaluated
by the Electoral Commission, in reports which should be laid before
the House at least once every Parliament. The Electoral Commission
should consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission when evaluating
the scheme.(Paragraph 214)

34. There is overwhelming
evidence that shortage of money and the necessity of additional
expenditure to support disabled people through candidacy, make
finance a particularly significant barrier to elected office
for disabled people. Disabled people should be able to fight for
parliamentary seats without having to face the complicated financial
barriers that confront them at present. This is not a question
of political advantage, but a simple matter of achieving just
representation. (Paragraph 220)

35. We therefore believe
that the Government should urgently consider, as part of the
Democracy Diversity Fund, a ring-fenced scheme to support disabled
parliamentary candidates. This scheme for disabled candidates
should use as its model the Access to Public Life Fund which has
been proposed by Scope. The scheme should be devised and operated
by the Department for Work and Pensions, and should be administered
in the same way as the Access to Work scheme. (Paragraph 221)

36. A measure which
could help to reduce the burden on candidates would be for the
Government to legislate to give approved prospective parliamentary
candidates who are employees the right to request a reasonable
amount of unpaid leave during working hours and/or a right to
work flexibly for the purposes of campaigning. This would also,
symbolically, recognise that the action of standing for election,
whether or not the candidate is successful, is an essential part
of our democratic process and of public benefit. (Paragraph
223)

37. The Government
should legislate to enable approved prospective parliamentary
candidates who are employees to take unpaid leave, rather than
resigning their employment, for the period from the dissolution
of Parliament to election day(Paragraph 224)

38. We recognise that,
in the first instance, making such leave unpaid protects employers
from any suggestion that they may be improperly financing a political
campaign. In the long term we would like the Government to move
to a position where candidates are entitled to receive a grant
from the state equivalent to the minimum wage for the period sometimes
known as the short campaign. (Paragraph 224)

39. Each central political
party should consider drawing up statements of expectation setting
out the role, and the reasonable demands which may be made, of
both prospective parliamentary candidates and local party associations
in different types of seat. (Paragraph 229)

40. First-time candidates,
in particular, would benefit from the establishment of formal
mentoring schemes and/or 'buddy systems' which can provide pastoral
support and independent advice on issues arising within the constituency.
(Paragraph 230)

41. Regional or central
party officials should also consider whether further training
support might be beneficial to candidates who have limited experience
of formal management, team building and leadership roles. (Paragraph
231)

42. We believe it
should be possible for each Parliamentary party to maintain a
list of individuals from under-represented groups, perhaps nominated
by stakeholder organisations, who might by this means be notified
of internships and temporary vacancies arising in Members' offices.
All reasonable adjustment costs for the successful applicant should
be funded for the duration of the appointment. We invite the political
parties to work with stakeholder organisations to establish how
this can best be done. (Paragraph 237)

43. We believe that
there is scope for the development of a UK-wide scheme similar
to the Step Up Cymru mentoring scheme, but with a strong Westminster
element. This could bring together elected members at all levels
of government to provide opportunities for people from under-represented
groups to find out about their work. The initial aim might be
to encourage involvement in community groups, but it should also
give encouragement to those who might wish to become candidates
for elected office at local and national level or be appointed
to a public body. (Paragraph 241)

44. The parties should
each draw up a formal code of conduct for campaigning. This should
make clear that campaigning is unacceptable where it seeks to
undermine a candidate by reference to his or her family life,
racial background, sexual orientation, health status or disability.
These codes of conduct should be in place in time for the 2010
general election. (Paragraph 244)

45. The inflexibility
of Parliament's working practices (which are partly institutional
and partly the result of the way that the political parties work),
together with the increasingly heavy workload of constituency
demands, combine to create a lifestyle which is detrimental to
Members with caring responsibilities, both for children and other
dependents.(Paragraph 249)

46. In recent months
there has been a push at Westminster to change many of the ways
in which the House of Commons operates. The ultimate outcome of
the various reviews and inquiries which are being conducted ought
to be a revitalised House with much clearer rules, better accountability
and, possibly, greater independence. If such changes are considered
and implemented effectively they should benefit us all. There
is, however, an opportunity within these changes also to make
the House of Commons a more flexible, humane and responsible institution
which, while it requires greater probity of those within it, also
takes greater account of the circumstances in which each individual
works. (Paragraph 251)

47. A diverse workforce
for Parliament is not an aspiration but an imperative. It is essential
to the House's credibility that the participation of Members who
have young families and/or other caring responsibilities is maintained
and supported. This must be kept in mind by all who are engaged
in the current process of Commons reform. (Paragraph 253)

48. Maternity, paternity
and caring leave is an issue which all three main parliamentary
parties have as yet failed to take fully seriously. (Paragraph
263)

49. Each Parliamentary
party should draw up a formal statement of policy on maternity,
paternity and caring leave. This should set out clearly the minimum
level of support which an individual requesting leave may expect
from his or her party, and the steps which the individual should
take to arrange a period of leave. Such statements should be agreed
by party leaders, and published on party websites and in the party
whip, by the end of 2010. (Paragraph 264)

50. The Government
has recently indicated its intention to give the Independent Parliamentary
Standards Authority (IPSA) the responsibility for setting salaries
and pensions, with effect from 2011-12. We invite IPSA to consider
the development of formal maternity, paternity and caring leave
arrangements for MPs which are as closely equivalent to the general
public sector provision as possible. In the mean time we would
ask the Senior Salaries Review Body to look into the matter and
to report in 2010. (Paragraph 268)

51. We have said that
it is essential to the House's credibility that the participation
of Members who have young families is supported. It is likely
that at the 2010 general election a number of younger Members,
who have young children, will enter the House of Commons for the
first time. We welcome the recent announcement of plans for a
nursery facility within the Parliamentary estate and urge the
House service to implement the proposal as soon as possible. This
facility should be open to Members and staff.(Paragraph
270)

52. Decisions on childcare
are a matter of personal choice and for many MPs their arrangements
will be essential to their ability to carry out their parliamentary
duties. Parents will choose to have their children looked after
in their homes (in the constituency and/or in London) by other
family members, by nannies or registered childminders, or in a
nursery or crèche. All of these choices are equally valid
and should be equally respected by the parliamentary authorities.
We recommend that a scheme be considered to allow Members to take
a proportion of their salary in the form of childcare vouchers.
(Paragraph 271)

53. It would be better
if Members' requests for caring or sickness leave were less subject
to the state of relations between the parties and the turn of
events. We believe that greater transparency about the organisation
of pairing would help. We therefore recommend that the business
managers for each Parliamentary party should regularly brief their
Members about the process of pairing, the requests they have received
for pairing and whether or not it has been possible to agree to
those requests. (Paragraph 274)

54. The sitting hours
of the House should again be reviewed, and voted upon by the House,
early in the new Parliament. Ideally, sitting time for the main
chamber should be brought in line with what is considered to be
normal business hours. Respecting the difficulty of achieving
this, given the multiplicity of other duties inside and outside
the Palace of Westminster carried out by Members, we recommend
a substantial further development of deferred voting in order
to facilitate a more family friendly approach to sitting arrangements
and unscheduled (unprogrammed) votes. Further consideration should
be given to modern methods of voting to facilitate a more efficient
and practical use of time, in line with other legislatures. (Paragraph
286)

55. We hope that the
House service will review, and draw up new guidelines to clarify,
the circumstances in which a child under the age of one may accompany
his or her MP parent within restricted areas of the House of Commons.
(Paragraph 288)

56. We think it is
important that Members who wish to undertake civil marriages and
civil partnerships should have the same rights as Members undertaking
Christian marriage rites to hold their ceremonies within the Palace
of Westminster. The House service should take whatever steps are
necessary to ensure that such civil ceremonies can take place
within the Palace of Westminster from 2010. (Paragraph 290)

57. It is important
for the House to obtain much better information about the percentages
of Members who belong to under-represented groups, and to know
more about their experiences of politics and of the House. We
believe that the arguments in favour of regular, sensitive and
appropriate monitoring of the situation are convincing. The House
should consider how this might be done. One approach would be
for the House's occupational health department to ask Members
to complete confidential questionnaires about their experience
of any illness or impairment while attending the Department for
screening/self referral or disability assessment. The anonymised
questionnaires could be collated and analysed by the department
and the analysis fed back to the appropriate committee annually.
The survey might also secure similar information about the racial
origin and, if possible and appropriate, the sexual orientation
of Members. (Paragraph 293)

58. We recommend that
there should be a regular survey (at least once every five years)
of public attitudes to Parliament and its composition, and in
particular of the impact of the measures taken following this
report. This should test whether greater diversity among MPs is
bringing greater public approval and acceptance of the work of
the House, and should be carried out by an independent body such
as the Hansard Society. (Paragraph 295)

59. We welcome the
range of effective measures which have been taken by the authorities
in both Houses in recent years to meet the needs of disabled Members.
Parliament responds well, in the vast majority of cases, to specific
requests for assistance. However, there is still a largely unfair
impression among some people that the House of Commons does not
welcome disabled Members. The House needs to put this right. We
recommend that the House should explicitly accept its responsibility
to provide the support needed to enable disabled Members to do
their job. In particular, the Parliamentary ICT service (PICT)
should designate an experienced liaison officer to provide customised
advice and support to maximise access to computing and other communications
technology for disabled Members who require it. The passage into
law of the Equality Bill currently before Parliament will be a
good opportunity for the House authorities to announce publicly
how committed they are to supporting disabled Members. The House
should therefore make an early policy statement that it will apply
fully the principles of the Equality Bill on reasonable adjustment
and discrimination. This should cover both areas where the House
is required to act within the law and those where it is not so
required. (Paragraph 310)

60. We also recommend
that the House should provide to each Member information on all
the facilities and assistance available for disabled Members,
which should be given wide publicity amongst disabled people and
updated regularly. We also urge the parties to make this information
widely known among their own members, to give potential parliamentary
candidates confidence that support will be provided. We would
also encourage the authorities in the House of Lords similarly
to consider what further steps can be taken to improve the situation
for disabled peers. In general we believe that any recommendations
made by the occupational health service about the facilities and
assistance which should be made available for disabled Members
should be accepted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards
Authority. (Paragraph 311)

61. We see benefits
in the idea of a ring-fenced fund to assist disabled Members to
make reasonable adjustments to help them serve their constituents.
This might fund better access to constituency offices or the provision
of BSL interpreters for surgeries, and would be of particular
assistance to newly-elected disabled MPs. We recommend that the
new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority includes provision
for this in its allowances scheme, and we expect IPSA and the
House authorities to work closely together on the provision of
services and allowances to disabled MPs, and to devise a scheme
which provides the help that is needed. (Paragraph 313)

62. We believe that
the House and its Members would benefit from having a small in-house
team on the model of the National Assembly for Wales Equalities
Team, responsible for monitoring how the House is doing on all
equalities issues and also for planning provision for disabled
Members, staff and visitors. The team would have responsibility
both for internal and external work to promote greater diversity
and equality. It should also liaise with IPSA. (Paragraph 315)

63. The law on disqualification
from Membership is not consistent or logical in its treatment
of various types of illness or disorder. If a Member suffers from
serious physical illnesssay a strokethat can leave
constituents effectively un-represented in much the same way as
if a Member has a serious mental disorder. Yet there is no parallel
provision to s141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for cases of physical
illness. We have received substantial evidence from a number
of sources, both expert and lay, to suggest that s141 wrongly
implies that mental illness is in some way fundamentally different
in its effects from physical illness. Yet the House, through its
medical services, can provide care and assistance for those with
mental illness, just as it can for those with physical illness.
(Paragraph 325)

64. We believe that
s141 of the 1983 Mental Health Act is unnecessary and damaging.
It embodies attitudes which stigmatise and sap the confidence
of people with mental illness. Section 141 should be repealed
as soon as practicable. (Paragraph 327)

65. We recognise,
however, that some provision may be needed to protect the legitimate
interests of constituents and the House in circumstances where
a Member is physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent
that he or she is entirely unable to fulfil their duties for an
extended period. We recommend that the House should invite an
appropriate select committee to undertake an inquiry into this
issue, consider whether new legislation or other measures may
be needed, and make recommendations to the House and to Government
as appropriate. (Paragraph 328)

66. We recommend that
an information pack and supporting guidance on the House's occupational
health services should be sent to all Members of Parliament immediately
after each General Election (Paragraph 329)

67. That there is
a lack of balance in media coverage of Parliament between 'set
piece' debates in the Chamber and the less heated discussion
in other settings. Correcting the balance would benefit Parliament
in several ways. Greater reporting of constructive committee hearings
and events outside the main Chamber would:

· increase
public understanding of the breadth of Parliamentary activity
and the work of backbenchers;

· clearly
demonstrate that there is more to the work and culture of the
Commons, and of individual Members, than barracking, shouting
and trying to get one over on the other side; and could

· re-engage
those members of the public who find
the presentation of debates and questions in the Chamber tiresome
and off-putting. (Paragraph 332)

68. The
House of Commons Media and Communications Service should identify
new approaches in both old and new media which would bring the
more measured and less heated elements of the House's work to
a wider audience. We urge Members to take the opportunities thus
offered to present the work of the House in a more constructive
light. (Paragraph 335)

69. The House service
should make training available to Members for communication through
the internet. (Paragraph 337)

70. We, like the Commission
on Candidate Selection before us, would wish to see an end to
strident, hostile and intrusive reporting of politicians' private
lives which is destructive not only of those individuals but also
of their families, relationships, and of the democratic process
itself. (Paragraph 343)

71. We acknowledge
that Members as well as outside commentators have been known to
abuse other Members, of their own and other parties. Such behaviour
among colleagues would not be considered acceptable in most professions
and brings the profession of Parliamentarian into disrepute. Members
should treat their colleagues, across all parties, with courtesy.
(Paragraph 344)